On the CH news tonight at 6:00, there was a story which definitely caught my eye involving the power of the Niagara Escarpment Commission It amazes me that the Niagara Escarpment Commission is closing down “Mackie’s Archery Range” (which is on privately owned land…which is zoned agricultural I believe) , because it doesn’t fit in their plan. This is not in line with what the “Keep it Scenic” group have been told at a number of meetings. We were told that the Niagara Escarpment Commission only concerns themself with the land from the edge of the brow land to the bottom of the hill. This story portrays a very different power of the Commission. See the attached article available before the decision was made. I am sure the story will be big news in tomorrow’s Spec. I have to say that I support “Mackie” in this endeavour. Good Luck Mackie.
Last stand for Mackie’sArchery range owner seeks support for Nov. 15 protest in Georgetown
Grimsby
Nov 09, 2007
Mackie’s Mountain Archery is down to its last arrow.So on Thursday, Nov. 15, the Beamsville archery facility is hoping to pack a bus full of people and head to Georgetown for the Niagara Escarpment Commission’s monthly meeting.
At this meeting, the commission will make a decision on Bob Mackie’s archery facility regarding whether it is going to order him to close his business or not.
Mackie’s Mountain Archery, located at 3922 Zimmerman Road, has been entrenched in a battle with the NEC over an alleged land use violation for two years.
The nine-acre archery range and training facility has been operating since January of 2002. Alongside outdoor ranges, the property also includes a 175-square-foot pro shop and a portable classroom converted into an indoor range.
“It’s my property and my livelihood,” explains owner Bob Mackie.
The facility was originally built without a development permit, and concerned neighbours brought it before the commission two years ago.
The NEC made it clear the business is not permitted under the Niagara Escarpment Plan. According to the plan, the archery range is contrary to both municipal and regional policy plans and must be closed or face legal action.
Since that time, Mackie has appealed to the commission multiple times in an attempt to change the decision.
He said the Nov. 15 meeting will be the last kick at the can.
“The commission doesn’t want to defer this issue any longer,” he said.
Close to 50 provincial landowner directors have already confirmed their attendance at the meeting to show their support for Mackie’s facility.
“This time, we’re going to come with a large number of people and say our words in a forceful manner,” said Ontario Landowner’s Association president Jack MacLaren.
“Bob Mackie’s use of his nine-acre property is a very passive and environmentally friendly use. We’re going to say those words loud and clear.”
MacLaren acknowledges this isn’t the first time they have explained this to the NEC. However, the escarpment commission is the only group that continues to act against the archery range.
“Everyone is on board,” said Mackie. “The only one that is standing in our way is the commission. And they’re just a regulatory body that doesn’t seem to have an answer for anyone.”
“The frustrating part is we operated for four years before there was even an issue.”
NEC manager Ken Whithead said the issue needs to be resolved, one way or the other.
He admitted that although the commission is still accepting submissions concerning the archery range, their decision likely will not change.
“I’ve been here for over 30 years, and the commission generally agrees with the staff recommendation,” he said. “That’s the best I can give you.”
Problems with the facility remain two-fold, he said.
First, the commercial-recreational facility never received permits or approval before opening up shop. Secondly, it is not a permitted land use in the area.
Even though the landowner’s association backs Mackie, other rural landowners remain in opposition to the archery range.
“In favouring one, you sort of dismiss the others,” Whithead said.
The two-year battle with the commission over land use rights has cut Mackie’s income by a third, he said. People have stopped coming for business thinking the facility has closed.
Mackie said his business has introduced more than 200 new archers to the sport, some of whom have become provincial and national champions.
The facility also provides training and recreational opportunities for youth, handicapped persons, scouts and schools.
If the commission’s ruling does not change, Whithead said a formal order would be made regarding closure and removal of buildings. If Mackie’s Mountain Archery does not close in time, the issue could land in court.
Mackie vows that regardless of the NEC’s decision, he will continue to operate.
About Colleen
I would recommend that you get all the facts before being led astray by a two minute newsclip on CHCH news.
First, we need to remember that “news media” only present enough information to raise their ratings. The truth is often hidden for the sake of $$’s into their coffers, which is more important to them than true investigative reporting, where presenting the the public with both sides of the story used to be normal.
Secondly, search Goggle for “Mackie”, 06-113 for the 20 page pdf document from the Environmental Review Tribunal Hearing Decision of January 22/2007. http://www.ert.gov.on.ca/Decisions/06113d1.pdf
You’re continued opinion would be welcomed; after you become more aware of the background facts.
Surround.
I read your suggested material with interest. I will admit that I was not fully aware of the other land owners issues. However, having said that my intent was to point out that the Niagara Escarpment Commission is making decisions on land that is other than what neighbours on the West Mountain are being told they have authority over. We would like them to make a ruling favouring that the land that development is being proposed for was not in keeping with the neighbourhood. A parcel of the land is deemed “Sensitive Area”. In addition, there was a covenant on another portion of the land that stipulated “single family homes and/or park land”. This covenant was older than 40 years and therefore it seems it just got written off. (Remind me never to donate to the Chedoke Foundation/Hamilton Health Sciences, or any foundation for that matter. I would fear that my donation would not be kept in the spirit in which it was given).
Thanks for your comments and enlightening me. Sometimes we can’t see the forest for the trees. But where is the Niagara Escarpment Commission when it comes to our issue – “Let’s Keep it Scenic”.
Thanks for your response.
For your information, I am quite familiar with the portion of Scenic Drive on the west mountain that you’re attempting to save. I used to live on West 32nd for quite a number of years (Chedoke Public School grade 4 to Westmount High School grade 13, plus more years before I married and moved on). I often took the trail from Scenic Drive through the woods that led past the Hospital Nurses Residence and to the Brow Infirmary. The steps leading to the Chedoke Golf Course Club House were well used by young kids like myself who were seeking “life” beyond our immediate neighborhood.
Similiar to our situation with Mackies Archery, you are attempting to save what we have of our environment, without having it become a commercial identity or a residential complex. Logic asks us “why should we travel to the “north” when we have enjoyments of nature right here”. Or, “why can’t development be controlled for the benefit preserving our environment?”
It’s been good “talking” with you; be encouraged, keep up your fight.
Not sure who is looking after this site or where to comment but as a resident for over 20 years, I was getting a little concerned where we and this proposed development are going. My wife went to a open house early in the year and one of these recent plan meetings.Finally sat down last night for two hours to go through all the comments and opinions on this site and the others eg Hamiltonians /etc and others. Didn’t realize what a diverse range of good and bad ideas. Also went through a ton of stuff on the Planning Departments site explaining where both the City and Provincial Policies are directing the whole process. Let me commend the group organizers on trying to keep us informed but as one who wanted to keep an open mind, I don’t think we have all the pertinent information in front of us. I asked my next door neighbour how the real planning concerns were being addressed and the answer was to the effect that ,, they don’t matter , we just don’t want any development, only a park. My sister went through a similar exercise in Oakville and they totally lost at the omb.The omb doesn’t care about petitions ; just planning facts.
My real concern is that we grasping at straws, eg the 1932 land purchase conditions, which wasn’t explained as only affecting one acre and when I asked my lawyer about this, he told me ,, not a hope in h—. Also , someone questions the purchasers abilities ? Another straw. If someone has 10 million $$ up front, I’m sure they have some serious partners and how are we to judge ? The driving group behind the opposition to building are maybe 100 or 200 people,, How about the silent majority who, as you get blocks away from the new proposals, do they really care ?
Lastly after due consideration and all my recent reading, we all have to worry about the future of our kids, the additional people growth in Hamilton and the need to intensify. Growth is going to happen in south Ontario and I for one want to be a positive voice. If you have an ad-hoc committee, can I attend ? I may not agree totally but we should all have the right to free opinions. I am prepared to donate a few dollars to a good approach but I am not convinced we are doing it the right way yet.
The propery in question here is now for sale…is anywone aware whether the previous land use isseus would affect the new owner? Has it been resolved?